Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retires; all Hell to break loose

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O’Connor has been the swing vote on many of the Court’s most contentious issues, not the least being abortion, and as such Bush has the opportunity to swing the court sharply to the right. If Bush lives up to his own character, expect an uncompromising nominee that will ignite a war in the Senate that could change the character of the institution for a generation. I cannot overstate my pessimism. Really… I think our national politics could descend into violence.

On a local note, I suppose Dino Rossi is going to have a tough time ducking the abortion issue in 2008 once Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is thrown back to the states.

Share:

Related

Comments

If you listen to Scalia, the reason to overturn Roe v Wade is because it is a state issue, not a federal one. And, it belongs in the legislature, not the court. I suspect that the day after the ruling was tossed, the legislatures in 50 states would be drafting and passing legislation allowing abortion in the same manner allowed today. And then the issue will go away, because it will have been settled in the way the founders intended these matters to be settled.

The issue will go away?!! I want what Janet S is smoking. Instead of a federal battle, there will be 50 state battles. In some states, like Washington I expect, women will have the right to choose. In others, like many or most of the red states, women will not. And there will be pitched battles in the legislatures of each before that is decided. We may also see red states trying to pass laws making it illegal for someone in another state to perform an abortion on a state resident, then trying to extradite a doctor from Washington for instance. And if the right to privacy is not part of the Constitution, we could see Texas for instance, trying to make contraception illegal. Abortion is only the tip of the iceberg if Bush is allowed to put a Scalia clone on the Supreme Court.

It should be noted that even with O’Connor’s resignation, there are still five votes to uphold Roe. Secondly, the Washington State Constitution has an explicit privacy clause, which has been read to guarentee reproductive rights even before Roe.

Still, it is sad to see a sane conservative step down. Bush might do what is good for the country and appoint someone sensible…., he can always start at some point.

wayne foresees that “there will be 50 state battles. In some states, like Washington I expect, women will have the right to choose. In others, like many or most of the red states, women will not. And there will be pitched battles in the legislatures of each before that is decided.”

Before, and after. If a woman’s right to make her own private medical decisions with her doctor is no longer guaranteed, you can bet that abortion opponents will keep pushing and pushing to limit or outlaw it wherever they can. If it’s a legislative issue, partisans will make it a political issue every year. Because surely it is the most pressing matter facing our nation, the key to our future prosperity.

Thank our state’s founders for including a strong privacy right in our constitution.

Abortion is a diversionary issue. The real issues the administration cares about are business regulation, worker protection, environmental protection, and civil rights. Once again conservative voters will give away their jobs and security in the name of some moral values issue that the people in charge of the Republican party don’t care about.

I may have missed that part of the constitution – right to privacy. I’m not saying it is a good idea, but it isn’t in there. What is in there is the 10th amendment that says everything not mentioned in the Constitution gets to be decided by the states. Politics is a messy business, but it sure beats the alternative.

Oh, and BTW, it was the liberal wing of SCOTUS that took away property rights and screwed the little guy.

People, you should really read the Roe v. Wade decision before using it as a crutch for your position.

In order for the decision to stand, the court had to first disclaim that unborn babies are people. Blackmun even notes that without this premiss the rest of the arguments like privacy topple and are meaningless to the question. Do you believe unborn babies are people? It’s a fundamental question to the crux of any argument about allowing Roe v. Wade to stand because the constitution says that all people in America have a right to life.

Read the decision before making one. You also might be surprised to find out the decision itself does not limit abortions at all because technically, the mental and financial health of the mother and her born children can be a factor in the “private decision.”

You know, with all the hoopla regarding the 10 commandments displayed at court buildings… wouldn’t it be more aprapo and powerful a statement to have monuments to the Bill Of Rights?

And Back on topic, with the very real possibility of shrub getting 3 or more opportunities to pack the court with Neo-Con approved justices, I think it woud be in the bipartisan interest of the congress to start getting those impeachment proceddings fast tracked for Bush and Cheney.

As a principled liberal, Donnagedon, I strongly encourage you to impart your vision of what children are and aren’t with everyone, especially future mates and pregnant women. And not just any pregnant woman, mind you. As a princpled liberal you should feel comfortable in having the discussion with friends and family with whom you will forever have to interact.

Also, you might look up in the dictionary the word “fetus”. Fetus is a stage of life (of a human) like adolescent…not a different species.

Okay, I can accept this. But not in the way TML wants me to. I agree that a viable fetus—one that is near term and ready to be born, so it can survive outside the womb—is a “baby,” and of course human babies are people.

But a blastocyst is not a baby. An embryo is not a baby. A fetus in the early stages of development is not a baby. When someone refers to a “baby,” we have all sorts of happy memories and associations to go with it; we are not imagining a ten-week-old fetus.

From the moment the egg is fertilized by a sperm, it has the potential to become a grown person, but (at that point of gestation, at least) a “child” it is not.

So, if you think a woman can terminate pregnancy at will (without input from the man), would you allow that the man can “terminate” at will his involvement with the pregnancy through a legal process? I mean, the idea of the helpless woman requiring a man’s support is antiquated, right?

Abortion will always be free, legal and available to anyone with the financial means to buy a plane ticket to Seattle, San Francisco, NYC, Toronto, or someplace else civilized. Legislating morality will, once again (Quelle Horreur!!) fail, except for the poor folks at the bottom of the economic ladder who cannot buy themselves options.

If anyone has wondered how conservative ideology rectifies the apparent contradictions between their libertarian pro-business wing and their moralist values wing, the answer is staring you in the face:

Personal freedom is another commodity that can be bought and sold. Nobody gets it for free.

“Let me rephrase… WHATEVER you call it, at what BRIGHT LINE point is the “it” inside a woman’s belly a person?” Let me rephrase my response: Never.

“So, according to carla’s researched definition @ 15, you feel that unrestricted abortion is OK from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth??!!” It is a matter of concern only between a woman and her Doctor.

“Just to clarify… Are you saying that, according to your bright line, killing the “it” is OK right up until the moment of birth if it will save the mother?” No, I am saying it is not “killing” at all. It is the termination of a pregnancy.

1) In normal political give-and-take in our democracy, the president consults with the opposition party and compromises in the direction of moderation instead of ramming a hard-left or hard-right nominee down their throats. That’s how the system is SUPPOSED to work. This president doesn’t follow the long-established political rules, and consequently, he and his party deserve whatever happens to them.

2) Before Roe v. Wade, abortion battles in state legislatures wasted vast amounts of legislative energy and resources, and kept important work on education, transportation, and other issues from getting done. Moreover, these battles were re-fought in every new legislative session. A SCOTUS decision throwing the issue back to the state legislatures would be the worst thing that could happen to state governments. In addition, if abortion was legal in some states but banned in others, there would be an abortion traffic across state lines. The country will be far better off if SCOTUS either leaves Roe v. Wade in place, or figures out a way to ban abortion outright, rather than leave it up to individual states.

If abortion becomes illegal you will see riots in the streets. People will use burning flags to torch every conservative christian church they can find. Conservafucks are going to push too far and the backlash will cause a civil war.

I don’t think an abortion ban would cause a civil war. It would just bring back illegal abortions and the deaths of thousands of women in back alley butcher shops.

On the other hand, if the Republicans try to establish permanent one-party rule by rigging the election system, suppressing dissent, jailing opponents, and eliminating due process, that will have to be settled with guns.

I’m not trying to peddle blasocysts as people. I’m trying to get people to READ ROE v. WADE because anytime liberals think of it being overturned or even revisited, they FREAK OUT. But, really it’s a bad decision that is misrepresented for something other than it is and not based on any science. Don’t believe me? Go read it and engage me in a debate.

People think it’s a privacy issue, but first it is about the dismissal of the unborn as people. On top of that, another misconception is that it limits abortions in someway, and the decision doesn’t. Some other state laws may.

Here’s what I view as the most twisted part of the liberal support for upholding abortion rights with Roe v. Wade:

an excerpt from one of my writing:

Justice Blackmun goes on to cite “strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth” from Jewish, Protestant and Renaissance Roman Catholic dogmas as further evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to secular law!? What happened to science and reason. How is it that the progressive stance in the 1970s and now is dependent on going backwards in time when little was known about the prenatal experience and on antiquated religious views of when life begins?

In summation, if someone questions Roe v. Wade nationally or someone you know, have the principle of conviction to at least know what you’re defending and go read and understand the decision so you can be informed.

The man has several out. DNA can prove paterity. Not his, he’s not responsible. An earlier out is for him to use a contraceptive. But if he did the deed and she keeps the result, he bought the responsibility.

Justice Blackmun goes on to cite “strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth” from Jewish, Protestant and Renaissance Roman Catholic dogmas as further evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to secular law!? What happened to science and reason. How is it that the progressive stance in the 1970s and now is dependent on going backwards in time when little was known about the prenatal experience and on antiquated religious views of when life begins?”

Yep, that is plenty twisted. Do you get paid by the “!” in your writing?

It’s been a while since I’ve read Roe v. Wade, but as I recall, the opinion grappled at length with the question of when does a fetus become a human life, and concluded science couldn’t provide the answer. I didn’t see any logical gaps or flaws in the majority’s reasoning; and its discussion of the privacy right was thorough and compelling.

Me: “WHATEVER you call it, at what BRIGHT LINE point is the “it” inside a woman’s belly a person?” Donna: “Never.”

What about mid-delivery — if the head is out, but the rest is inside?

Me: “…you feel that unrestricted abortion is OK from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth??!!”

Donna:It is a matter of concern only between a woman and her Doctor.

Re-read the definition of “fetus.” Do you REALLY mean that UNRESTRICTED abortion is totally OK in the third trimester?

Me: “Are you saying that, according to your bright line, killing the “it” is OK right up until the moment of birth if it will save the mother?”

Donna: “No, I am saying it is not “killing” at all. It is the termination of a pregnancy.”

Actually, it IS killing if it is a living thing. You can kill a person or a cat or a plant or a bunch of cells. It is killing. My question, semantics aside, is: Are you in favor of taking the life of the ‘it’ up until the moment of delivery?

“What about mid-delivery – if the head is out, but the rest is inside?” – Is it wearing a bow tie, but tied it poorly?

“Re-read the definition of “fetus.” Do you REALLY mean that UNRESTRICTED abortion is totally OK in the third trimester?”

– re-read my response the last time I answered the same question from you.

“Actually, it IS killing if it is a living thing.” – Your opinion, not mine.

“You can kill a person or a cat or a plant or a bunch of cells.” – That would be odd? It is a cat, or a plant.

“It is killing.” – are you now talking about the cat and the plant?

“My question, semantics aside, is: Are you in favor of taking the life of the ‘it’ up until the moment of delivery?” – Am I in favor of it? That is an absurd question! And it is not my decision to make. It is up to the woman and her doctor.

quite obviously a fetus is human. That seems so clear as to not need explaining–but neither is it particularly relevent. Is it invested with rights under the Constitution, is the question.

The answer was correctly decided, IMO: No. How could it? It is not an independent human, and there is no way of determining where the fetus stops and the mother begins. A fetus is attached by umbilical. How far up the cord is it considered “baby,” before it becomes “mother?” It is a physically indistinct organism. It does not breathe air, it does not eat food.

Beyond that, even if you DID consider it vested with rights under the Constitution, to vest them properly you have to deny them to the mother, since she has the right of dominion to her own body. Where there is a clash of rights, on what possible basis would the fetus claim superior status over the mother?

I don’t shrink from the reality of the situation, as many liberals do. Life begins at conception–when else would it be? Viability is a shifting, indeterminate concept, and a terrible way to judge when abortions might be legal or not. It is the taking of human life, no doubt. But it is life fully under the biological custody of the mother, and as such the mother must be granted control over that which her own body has fully contained.

No one ever said it’s an easy choice, but it should be a fairly logical one.

@ 45 , Ok tj, I grant that on a genetic level it is human, but it is not a baby, and it is not a person. An appendix shares the same DNA as a human, but we do not (except for christian scientists) bemoan or criminalize, the removal of it.

I see that you just want to dance around the words and not really address the issue.

1. Give me a bright line answer: At what point does the “it” achieve personhood?

2. Presume for a minute that A and B are mountainclimbing with a rope tied between them. If B falls, but A is NOT in any danger, would cutting the rope between them — thus leading to the death of B — be murder or just “personal choice?”

3. Thinking about the point after which the fetus is viable outside the womb… After the life of the mother is assured, does the doctor and/or mother bear NO responsibility for the survival of the fetus?

I am now seeing the reasoning behind the Kelo decision against private property rights. It is clear from this thread that liberals do not trust their legislature to make laws, and instead want the courts to make law.

I never said I wanted abortion made illegal. I stated clearly that if Roe v Wade is overturned, the states will pass laws that keep it legal, as they have already done in Washington. What is it that you so fear from elected officials? Do you really think that appointed judges are so much more pure?

Mark @ 49 I never dance, but I see you do like to repeat the same old questions over and over agin hoping to get the response you want. One More Time!

“1. Give me a bright line answer: At what point does the “it” achieve personhood?”

When it is born.

“2. Presume for a minute that A and B are mountainclimbing with a rope tied between them. If B falls, but A is NOT in any danger, would cutting the rope between them – thus leading to the death of B – be murder or just “personal choice?””

I am not a lawyer, but I presume that it would not be murder.That said, I do not have all the specifics. I also realise that it has nothing to do with our discussion.

“3. Thinking about the point after which the fetus is viable outside the womb… After the life of the mother is assured, does the doctor and/or mother bear NO responsibility for the survival of the fetus?”

That is a very poorly worded question, but I will assume you mean that the fetus would be viable if it were removed from the mother. And that giving birth to that viable fetus would not endger the mothers life, or cause significant harm to the mother. Base dupon this, I personally would strongly hope that the pregnancy would not be terminated. But then, it is a matter between the mother and the doctor, and any applicable laws on the state’s books.

Janet S @ 51 “It is clear from this thread that liberals do not trust their legislature to make laws, and instead want the courts to make law.”

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Every liberal I know believes (and in fact knows) that laws ARE made by the legislative branch (hence the name “legislative”) and the constitutionality of these laws are determined by the courts.

janet s @ 51 actually, if you’d read Kelo, you’d know that the Court specifically cited the legislatures as the entities to deal with emninent domain–so I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

So you are unequivocally against the “double murder” prosecution for someone killing a pregnant woman?

And my question is worded quite properly, thank you. You finally answered it — sort of. You took an out by using “laws on the books.” I asked what YOU thought. From your answer, it seems fairly clear that if there wasn’t a law against it, you’d think taking the life of the unborn “it” is OK at 8 months and 28 days — even if the mother’s health is not in jeopardy.

From your comments, you seem to say that an abortion at 14 days is morally equivalent to one at 250 days. Correct?

All of this semanticizing about fetuses being alive or not is boring. Everyone has their opinion, nobody is going to change it due to a blog fight.

I’d like to ask a more interesting question.

What percentage of women of childbearing age have had an abortion? Using the worst numbers possible, I get somewhere around 1 in 3.

(I say worst numbers because I am taking a cumulative value by the national right to life organization of abortions performed since 1973 and dividing it by the number of women in the US. This is statistically wrong on many levels. If I wanted to do bad statistics, I’d go to the other blog).

But 1 in 3 is a good number to start with.

There are a fairly good number of pro-life congresscritters. Many of them have daughters.

I’m curious as to how many of those daughters either had children very young, or put their children up for adoption? A little digging should be able to find some examples of this.

If I start seeing a substantial deviation from 1 in 3 (1 in 5 is not substantial, 1 in 20 would be substantial), some other questions would come up, like, are children of pro-life congressmen dramatically less promiscuous than the population at large, or are they more likely to use birth control?

A number of questions might come up as to what factors could contribute to such a low live birth/adoption rate in this population.

“From your answer, it seems fairly clear that if there wasn’t a law against it, you’d think taking the life of the unborn “it” is OK at 8 months and 28 days – even if the mother’s health is not in jeopardy”

According to Nancy Pelosi, SCOTUS has made the final word on eminent domain, and it gets to mean whatever the local govt says it means. She has said it is a violation of separation of powers for any legislature to step in and make a new law. (Yes, SCOTUS specifically said this is a remedy.)

This is the same mentality that says if Roe v Wade is overturned, states will mess it all up and there will be blood in the streets. Or the back alleys, whatever.

My point is that liberals tend to rely on the judicial branch of govt to uphold their view of the world. This is why the Senate Democrats are so willing to risk everything to keep Bush from exercising his Constitutional duty to appoint judges.

Are you unequivocally against the “double murder” (or any greater degree of charge) prosecution for someone killing a pregnant woman vs. a non-pregnant one?

Are you saying that an abortion at 14 days is morally equivalent to one at 250 days?

As for the other question, your original answer was, “it is a matter between the mother and the doctor, and any applicable laws on the state’s books.” If you take the “laws on the books” part out and make it JUST your opinion, it follows that you feel it is OK to have an abortion at ANY time prior to what you term “birth.” By the way, when EXACTLY is the “it” considered “born” and a “person?”

My personal belief in regard to my post @ 15 is irrelevant. TML said “look it up in a dictionary” so I did. TML’s definition didn’t fit the one in the dictionary.

But since you asked, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and as rare as possible. I believe that abortion should be illegal at the point of fetal viability, which is about 25 weeks. I don’t know when a fetus becomes a “person”. I’m not entirely sure that a full term, born infant can be considered as such, depending upon the definition of “person”.

In terms of “saving the mother”, I believe that an abortion should always be a possibility if it’s a medical decision/option necessary to save the mother’s life.

My issue really isn’t with you, it is more with “people” (Carla:”depending upon the definition of ‘person'”) like Donna who think that unrestricted abortion at any time is merely a private decision between a woman and her doctor. The issue as you and TJ have pointed out is far more complicated.

Your question about A and B and the rope have no useful application to the question of abortion. For example, I ask you the following question which I declare has no useful application to the question of abortion.

Gordon @ 79: “If a pregnant woman has a hysterectomy is it an operation or murder?”

I guess it depends on if she is pregnant with a viable fetus or not.

My A/B question was in response to Donna’s assertion that one owes no duty to something “parasitic” that depends upon them for survival. When you knowingly engage in sex, one possibility is that you will get pregnant and you should weigh that possibility against your minutes of bliss.

DONNA @ 81: “If a pregnant woman slips on the stairs and aborts her fetus, should she be charged with manslaughter?”

If she does so deliberately and at such time that abortion would be restricted given her circumstances (e.g. 3rd trimester & no health threat), yes. You’re arguing that the shooter didn’t kill the victim, the bullets did.

Goldy, our national politics decended to violence long ago, murderus violence against our most helpless citizens, the unborn children.

What you right-wing freakazoids don’t understand is this: A woman does not just wake up one morning and say, “gee, I think I’ll have an abortion today!” No, it’s a painful decision, one usually brought about by the feeling that she can’t raise this baby. And why can’t she? Well, lessee here . . . all the programs in place to help her have been cut and given to the rich! Head Start, daycare, etc., all have been or are about to be cut. See, you guys don’t give a ripshit about these kids once they’re born.

When Nixon had the National Guard murder a few students at Kent State for demonstrating against the war, it took a lot of the wind out of the anti-war movement. If this sort of thing starts happening to overreaching neo-cons, I think the same sort of thing will happen to them. I’m sure that Bill O’Reilly, Kristol, et al, realize that they could as easily have been doused with sulfuric acid as with Ranch Dressing or Cream Pies. That is the message the radical left was sending. There is more than one way to create fear. You don’t need to controll all branches of the government. What makes these asssholes think the military will help them suppress freedom—especially the way the neo-cons have been treating them.

Mark: You’re no patriot. Your a self-serving, overweening traitor with delusions of grandeur– and you’ll get your comeuppance. I won’t tolerate your kind anymore. We’ll be fishing assholes like you out of spiderholes in the near future and writing articles about your perverse butt-wiping techniques.

As I was saying…I am opposed to the criminalization of abortion until the debate is reframed in terms of equal responsibility of both partners. No woman should have to pay a penalty for a pregnancy that the partner doesn’t pay as well. If abortion is illegal for the woman, it is illegal for the partner and they should both be held responsible.

Now…I have an alternative solution, and I’m sure this is just what some of you sanctimonious preacher boys want to hear: With DNA testing, it is possible to establish paternity. All fertile males should have their DNA registered, preferably at the time of their of birth and stamped on their birth certificate, or, when they reach puberty. Those refusing to do so should be castrated. That way…any unborn child of theirs could be identified and they could help with the decision. Finally, they would have an opportunity to participate in the fruits of their own judgment.

If we focused on responsible fathering, (after all, it is males who initiate the seminal decision, isn’t it?), perhaps we would have children who are fathered only by morally and socially responsible males.

But then…I suspect if males were held equally responsible for their sexual decision, we wouldn’t likely be having this debate, would we? Marilyn

Your first paragraph was quite thoughtful and compelling. Then you must have had a bong-hit in addition to cat-scratch fever, because your second went loony…

My response to your second (in addition to calling it loony) is that men who father children by mothers who carry to term are already accountable. The only thing the mother has to remember is who caused her current situation and make sure the name is on the birth certificate (along with follow-up court visits for child support). The most unfortunate aspect of this is simple: if she had been more selective of her banging partner, her predicament would not be the same.

On the part of males, I say the same thing but with more emphasis on the personal responsibility issue. If you are going to use the woman simply as a booty call or f*ck-bag, you’d better use protection, or face the natural consequences…

The laws (and the extra-legal rulings of judges) surrounding the conception and raising of offspring are totally antiquated, convoluted and generally awful. While there are many cases of men skipping out on child support, the law cuts against men far more often:

Even if both parties agree to have or not have a baby at the outset, the woman’s decision to abort an originally-wanted fetus or keep an accidental pregnancy always trump the man’s wishes.

While MANY men skip out on pregnant moms, there are also cases where the non-biological father ends up being forced to pay. At least some have the option of suing for a paternity test, but even then, there have been cases of the judge saying “too bad, you pay anyway.”

Courts have historically favored the mother in custody cases, even when she is NOT the better parent. Even today, for a man to get 1/2 custody can cost tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. It is an uphill battle.

In general, fathers’ rights have been trampled by an antiquated legal system that presumes women are better parents, that women are helpless as single parents and that they hold little responsibility for their actions.

@97&98: Isn’t the key here “responsible sexual decision”. Marks @97: The point is: It is NOT just HER predicament. It is equally the responsibility of the male and he should have made that decsion before he chose to have sex with her. Unless they are absolutely certain they never had sex with the woman, men seem to think it doesn’t matters whether or not they know for sure if they fathered a child. If they aren’t certain, then…they think they didn’t have anything to do with it ? It is HER predicament? BULL SHIT. Take some responsibility for YOUR sexual decisions before you criticize hers. You don’t want to pay for someone else’s child? You don’t want to pay for a child you’re not sure is yours? Tough. Neither do I. Prove it isn’t yours. Stamp your DNA on your forehead or better yet, stamp it on your dick, to indicate good intent. I’m a taxpayer too, and I don’t want to pay for someone else’s child, especially yours, and unlike you, I know for sure which children aren’t mine.

Stay off the abortion debate and quit judging women for their decisions until you’re willing to take equal responsbility for yours, that is, BEFORE you make a sexual decision – that’s how REAL men behave. Grow up. Marilyn

I thought that was what I said @97. It takes two unique individual choices (usually) to have sex. Responsibility should be shared between those consenting. Where you delved into the realm of the bizzare was with your DNA rant, which was pretty loony…

Neither marks nor I EVEN said that the man doesn’t bear half the responsibility. Where you get the “tattoo” thing, I don’t know (how one could somehow represent their DNA in a tattoo-able form is another matter).

All I was saying was that the laws are currently skewed in favor of the woman because of the antiquated notion that she is somehow weaker or otherwise helpless without a man. For the record, it is BOTH of their responsibilities. Now, one COULD say that a man shouldn’t sleep with someone who isn’t stable enough to at least consult him and consider his feelings on the issue of pregnancy. If a woman is willing to abort a fetus (against the man’s wishes) that the couple BOTH wanted at the outset, it is probably a better thing that it happens because she is NOT good mother material.

EVERY man should take responsibility for where they put their DNA. On what do you base your comment of: “…men seem to think it doesn’t matters whether or not they know for sure if they fathered a child?”

Speaking for myself and any man I personally know, it matters a GREAT DEAL if the child is ours. Why do you think men are spending massive amounts of money trying to get at least shared custody?? An acquaintance of mine spent nearly $100,000 dealing with his somewhat-imbalanced ex-wife who decided that she just wanted to take the kids to New York. This guy is Mr. Upstanding Citizen, yet he had to fight tooth-and-nail to prove something about himself that was (wrongly) assumed about her — that of being a good parent, stable individual and contributor to society.

Marks@100: Yes, responsibility should be shared between those consenting, AND so should the “predicament” or the result of that Choice. BTW,@97: I don’t do bongs, and I don’t smoke – anything. I also don’t do drugs, so why don’t you just ditch those little prejudices and deal with the argument.

What is loony about the DNA suggestion? Why shouldn’t DNA testing be used routinely to establish paternity? DNA testing will reach the state where it is easy and inexpensive to do. why not? And..why shouldn’t the father be held to equal penalty for an unintended pregnancy if that is the direction in which this is going? Criminalizing abortion when it is only one party who pays the penalty is unjust and solves nothing. It won’t stop abortions. Women were having abortions long before Roe vs. Wade. It was costing lives, and legalizing it made it safer. Why is criminalizing abortion promoted with such zeal by males? Why does discouraging abortion have to be done through punitive means? through the court system? And why is the punishment only directed to women? Have you noticed how the anti-choice crowd, the males, are so careful to define the beginnning of life in a way that excludes them? How convenient. How special it must feel to sit on the judgment throne and cast stones at women and pretend they had no role to play. On the one hand, we’re supposed to recognize the importance of fathers in children’s lives, and on the other hand, males can turn their back on paternity and deny fatherhood as it suits them. Where is the sense in that? Either acknowlege the responsibility of both and if you don’t want to do that, then allow women to make the choices they need to make to survive.

Oh and about custody and child support: I’m not familiar with the court system, but I know people who are and they tell me that males seldom ask for custody. When they do request it, they have an equal chance to prove capability. There are even instances when some women would welcome it, but it usually isn’t requested. Perhaps we should automatically give males custody and force them to accept it…do you think that would help? Males seem plenty willing to let women deal with the day to day issues of child rearing while crying into their beer about child support.

I have no problem with DNA testing. I have a problem with your (flippant?) tattoo suggestion or other “registration.”

As for your: “…about custody and child support… When [men] they do request [custody], they have an equal chance to prove capability.

One word: Bulls**t

Perhaps we should automatically give males custody and force them to accept it…do you think that would help?”

From your lips to God’s ears.

Males seem plenty willing to let women deal with the day to day issues of child rearing while crying into their beer about child support.

1. Not ALL men. Many men WANT to be more involved, but women and society in general discourage it. Go look up some fathers’ rights websites.

2. Women can get custody, stay home and the child support from the man is based on her making zero. On the other hand, were the man to get greater custody, it is assumed that he has “going rate” income, whether he works or not, and women almost never have to pay the same child support for the same circumstances.

Just to refresh your memory (I won’t suggest it is short-term…oh, I guess I did)…

All fertile males should have their DNA registered, preferably at the time of their of birth and stamped on their birth certificate, or, when they reach puberty. Those refusing to do so should be castrated.

I hate to break it to you, but that is classified as “nutty” at best. I decided to go with loony, but either will work as a substitute for the other.

For the record, most courts will order a paternity test when such is in question. Results normally lead to child support dispensation when they are affirmative.

OK, Mark and Marks: I apologize for the “should be castrated” remark, and the suggestion of stamping the DNA on the forehead and the dick – those comments were a little gratuitous and over the top, and probably didn’t advance my case.

The sad think is, in this debate of who is responsible, and who should be punished, the child is the loser. And..for every male who wants to be responsible, there are many, many, others who simply walk away and walk away long before they every learn their partner is pregnant. I just don’t see an overwhelming ground swell of male support for children. I don’t see an overwhelming groundswell of male support for social programs that support children. Most male discussion I have read centers on avoiding responsiblity especially financial responsibility and then blaming the court system. Sorry, but that’s what I see. Even when the woman is not the strongest parent, I still don’t see males offering to take custody. Their input revolves around how they personally are getting screwed and not how their children would be better off and no positive suggestions as to how they can help. If responsible, caring males were in the majority, none of this would be an issue. It is not apparent that males feel any connection at all to female fertility or even their own. If there were truer feelings of partnership between men and women, the entire question of abortion would disappear because it wouldn’t be considered a necessary option. That said, criminalizing abortion, and holding only the women responsible gets this society nowhere. Marilyn

All fertile males should have their DNA registered, preferably at the time of their of birth and stamped on their birth certificate, or, when they reach puberty. Those refusing to do so should be castrated.

Actually Marilyn that castration idea is a good one. I know talking as a man there would be many benefits to it. No more being falsly accused of rape and no out of wedlock births.

And I apologize for the misattributions I leveled at you. I appreciate the points you made @105.

It seems to me that things started to go wrong on this debate (and I don’t mean simply abortion, but male/female responsibility) when the male became extraneous to any decision regarding having a baby (except for the first act, of course). I have to go along with the way things are (tj @43 writes a cogent reasoning that largely applies to my own view of the woman’s choice) due to law as written (or circularly applied by the courts).

I think this has been a catalyst for the male to apply a reasoning of his own, where he does not think responsibility is his, since the woman makes the ultimate choice. Just my opinion, of course.

marks@106: I absolutely agree that things started to go wrong in the debate when the male became extraneous to any decision of having a baby. But…how did that hapapen? The male became extraneous when the male chose to become extraneous – when the male started considering that when a woman had a choice of birth control, and, therefore, he was relieved of any responsibility regarding offspring. Any “accidents” were the female’s responsibility. The male didn’t simply become extraneous. the male abdicated. . And now, some men do realize what they have lost with that attitude. It didn’t just happen with the pill. It happened before that. It happened when the first line of defence against unwanted paternity was “It’s her word against mine”. Now with accurate paternity testing that one doesn’t carry water anymore. And it continues to happen every time a male says that society’s children aren’t his responsibility because they aren’t personally his, as in “that’s MY tax money going for those social programs!” or, when a male says “they can’t collect child support from me when I’m in jail”; or, “she’s just spending all MY child support on herself. In other words, it’s MY money, and MY obligation ought to be at MY convenience, and on MY terms – just like the sex was. This isn’t responsible acknowledgement of paternity. It ust seems to me that too many men examine their wallet before they examine their conscience.

All fertile males should have their DNA registered, preferably at the time of their of birth and stamped on their birth certificate, or, when they reach puberty. Those refusing to do so should be castrated

You know what is wierd… A male cant get a castration even if he wanted it. There are no doctors who will do it. I dont think you can get insurance for this proceedure unless it was for cancer. What a country. You can get abortion on demand but god forbid if you want a castration done.

It ust seems to me that too many men examine their wallet before they examine their conscience. My answer to males is: Stop abdicating and stop denying your children – you’re the ultimate loser.

Agreed. I would prefer the two individuals would take responsibility, but the meaning of such a term has become blurred. A man views his wallet as his, while the woman he lives with is only convenient in bed. I wonder how the woman views such an arrangement?

marks@110: “I wonder how the woman views such an arrangement before getting pregnant?”

I don’t have an answer to that. I just wanted to say, again, that I am opposed to the criminalization of abortion. That doesn’t mean that I encourage it’s use as a birth control measure. I am simply opposed to it’s criminalization. That said, I have never understood the unintended pregnancy. I’m not a believer in “accidents happen”.

Is that 43,000 vote margin with everything else being the same in Florida 2000. Wow.. that is a lot of abortions. Of course if Florida was not called early for Gore I dont think the 43,000 would have been enough. That bias political stunt by the left wing media cost Bush at least a couple hundred thousand votes. Oh well it turned out right anyways. Thanks for the vote Sandra Day.. at least you got that one right.

Loocy: No it’s your kind who we should no longer tolerate. You fill our school children with worthless garbage. I thought PacMan asked what school you attended to pollute good children’s minds? Please tell us why anyone should listen to you?

Loocy: You posting again? Woman, you shouldn’t be posting until you fess up on the school you attended to “teach” dem chilluns!!! But wait a minute. If donnageddon is Don a male, is headless loocy one too? Maybe that’s why loocy won’t tell where it went to school!

RUFUS: I agree with you, but sometimes you are a difficult read. I learned something tonight about all those abortions. I almost went to bed early. Can you imagine Al Gore being President when 9/11 happened? Scary thought!

Goldy- We knew you would write on this issue. Your whole family back East is so distressed by O’Conner’s resignation. We feel that her allegiance to the future of this country should have driven her to remain on the court no matter what her personal sacrifices may be. Or (my suspicious mind) were pressures put upon her that she could no longer deflect? As we all know CHOICE does not mean that you are automatically against abortion but that each woman can decide what is right for herself. Even though it distresses me as a Mom to see you putting all this time and effort into your unpaid blog I am so proud of your mission to present the truth out there. love, Mom

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.